Cut new gambling deals quickly
6:33 PM 5/22/04

Capitol connivers are working overtime to spread ill will in the wake of a court ruling that requires the state to strike new gambling deals with American Indian casino operators. <

Clearly the Supreme Court dealt a serious setback to Gov. Jim Doyle by saying he abused his power in signing an everlasting pact with the Forest County Potawatomi. The overturned deal closely resembles compacts with other Wisconsin tribes in that it expands gambling and minimizes opportunity to change the deal later. <

The resulting uproar has incited increasingly wild claims from Democrats and tribal supporters: <

Hasn't the ruling "thrown the tribal gambling industry into disarray"? No. The court ruling found Doyle didn't have the power to authorize new games like craps and roulette and Doyleit means the state may have to sign a shorter compact with the tribe, but as far as we know, no casino has closed down, and no craps table or roulette wheel has yet to be idled by the decision. <

Hasn't the ruling "blown a hole" in the state budget? No. The state already faces a minimum $200 million hole in its current budget that has nothing to do with the court or the tribes. True, tribes so far have threatened to withhold more than $60 million in payments, and the state could conceivably lose up to $143 million for the two-year budget that ends June 30 - if no one does anything to strike new deals. But the threat is a natural opening gambit for tribes that want a fix to the court decision negotiated quickly - and in their favor. <

Aren't the Republicans playing politics with the compacts? No more so than the Democrats, who reaped a campaign windfall from the biggest tribes. The contributions helped sweep Doyle into office, where he quickly cut these everlasting sweetheart deals with the tribes. The GOP lawsuit sought only to assert the Legislature's rightful oversight of deals that, at the time they were announced, clearly seemed out of bounds. <

No doubt, party politics figures into this spat. When a Republican was governor, Democratic lawmakers wanted say over the compacts. When a Democrat was elected governor, Republicans demanded their say. <

Until he got the job, even Doyle thought the governor ought to yield to legislative oversight. And one chief advocate for legislative oversight, Republican Assembly Speaker John Gard, voted in 1989 to give his GOP governor sole authority to negotiate the deals. <

OK then, it's settled: Everyone's a hypocrite. And yes, it's tiresome to see the Legislature sending Doyle a bill, for a third time, that would require legislative approval of the gaming compacts. But in fact, the Legislature should have final approval of the deals. Doyle is wrong to veto a bill that simply specifies how state government should balance executive and legislative powers. <

The bill is a reasonable compromise based on established practice: It would require the governor to submit any proposed compact to a committee of legislative leaders, and then the full Legislature also would get to vote. Lawmakers could say only yes or no. They'd have no power to amend the deal, in keeping with the idea that they shouldn't be involved in negotiations. <

If lawmakers failed to approve the deal, the compact would return to the governor for renegotiation. Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer says this reasonable model is based on long-established practices for approving state labor contracts, which also are negotiated solely by the executive branch but subject to legislative approval. <

All said, the court ruling need not result in any dire outcome for the tribes or Wisconsin's economy. Politicians should act quickly to minimize any potential harm to the Potawatomi tribe, which did nothing wrong in seeking the best deal it could get from the state. <

Put aside doomsayers' predictions for now. Doyle and leaders of Wisconsin Indian tribes already are meeting weekly to hammer out new, fair deals. But Doyle and other elected leaders also should put their heads together to cut another deal quickly - that allows the legislative approval sought by the lawsuit and required by the state constitution. <